Post on 09-May-2022
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical
Hierarchy Process for Corporate Social Responsibility Decision Making
Pavlo Brin*
*Corresponding author, Professor, Department of Management and Taxation, National Technical
University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kharkiv, Ukraine. E-mail: pavelbrin@ukr.net
Mohamad Nehme
PhD Candidate, Department of Management and Taxation, National Technical University, Kharkiv
Polytechnic Institute , Kharkiv, Ukraine. E-Mail: mohammadnehme@gmail.com
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a general concept where companies voluntarily decide
to adopt social, economic and environmental responsibilities for a better society and
environment. Researchers in the management field have created various CSR models and
theories. Moreover, enterprises are working out to strength its competitiveness performance
though adopting CSR approaches. For that, decision makers in an enterprise have to target the
most appropriate CSR approach that fit with the environment and the nature of their enterprise.
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been presented through the article in order to help
an organization take decision toward the most convenient CSR method according to many
characteristics and criteria.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Decision Making
Process, Competitiveness, Strategic Management
DOI: 10.22059/jitm.2021.80744 Document Type: Research Paper © University of Tehran, Faculty of Management
Introduction
Over the last decades, researchers in the management sphere have created various theories and
models to implement CSR concepts accurately. However, there is not any unified process where
decision-makers could depend on to target the most appropriate CSR approach for their
companies, such a gap might lead to dissatisfaction for enhancing competitiveness. In other
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 160
words, it may scatter the enterprise from reaching its desired objectives and may lack it from
gaining competitive advantages. To fill this gap, there is an urgent need to depend on a unified
basic procedure for enhancing competitiveness through targeting a specified CSR approach.
The main stream of the last two decades is the way of thinking about CSR not only as
philanthropy activity of a company, but as a powerful tool of increasing its competitiveness in
the indirect way through changes in external environment that leads to increasing company’s
performance (Brin at al., 2020).
As it seems, the majority of management scholars have discussed through various case
studies the importance of using AHP for measuring the general performance of various CSR
models, and for integrating the stakeholder’s decisions in socially responsible projects. But there
were only a few scientists who took into consideration to use the AHP methodology as an
analytical process for determining the more adequate CSR model for strengthening
competitiveness in emerging economy context, thereafter the general idea of the research is
shown on the figure 1.
Literature Review
The case of choosing the most adequate CSR model is multi-criteria and multi alternative,
thereafter for this situation a specific approach must be used; one of the possible approaches is
AHP which was founded by the famous scientist of the decision-making domain Thomas L.
Saaty. AHP is a mathematical technique that analyzes complex information based on
psychological and mathematical predictions in order to make the appropriate decision. Thomas
Saaty defined AHP as a basic approach for decision making. It is an application for economic,
social and political areas (Saaty, 1994). From this point, organizations can use the AHP approach
to define the importance of social, economic and political responsibilities for the organization
and other multicriterial decisions (Brin & Prokhorenko, 2014).
A lot of scholars in the management field tried to determine various dimensions that affect
CSR performance through AHP methodology. Indre Slapikaite is one of the economic scholars
who analyzed the CSR decision making process through AHP methodology, she mentioned that
“When the things go towards CSR, measuring and evaluating have become one of the key goals
for researchers and practitioners. Therefore, multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods
are suggested and used as the most appropriate tool for solving different kinds of economic and
social problems” (Slapikaite, 2006). Marta Kadłubena added that “using AHP approach is
formed practically with prioritizing the most important CSR criteria from the funders' point of
view” (Kadłubena, 2015).
161 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
Emerging country context
Company Increasing the competitiveness
Objectives of the companyAchieving objectives using traditional
managerial instruments and approaches
Direct methods
Achieving objectives through influence on parts of the external
environment using CSR methodology
Indirect methods
Ecological sphere
Social sphere
Political sphere
Ethical sphere
Economic sphere
What CSR approach has to be chosen by management of the company in the developing
country context ?
Adopting Trippel Bottom
Line CSR model
Adopting Carroll CSR
model
Adopting Stakeholders CSR model
Figure 1. The general idea of the research
Source: compiled by the authors
Alireza Riahi and Mahdi Moharrampour analyzed mathematical approaches for the
decision-making process in a business organization, one of these approaches was AHP. They
realized that AHP represents the most flexible approach for decision-making in various
circumstance (Riahi & Moharampour, 2016). AHP methodology can be used in various situations
for selecting the most effective alternative. Tamara Menichini and Francesco Rosati mentioned
that organizations’ activities affect the environment, economy and society. They added that the
evaluation of CSR performance depends on stakeholders who are affected by business activities.
They depended on the AHP methodology to support decision-makers for effectively determining
which indicators are the most significant in the CSR assessment. They concluded that these
indicators depend on the microeconomic and social situations of the country where companies
are operating their business (Menichini & Rosati, 2014)). Rute Abreu, Fátima David and David
Crowther made a study on the CSR-related experience and practice of Portuguese companies
notes cultural differences. They concluded that scientific scholars in business ethics field and
economic field must expand their scientific researches to point out the main socio-cultural
determinants in the globalized community (Abreu at al., 2005).
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 162
Some studies considered CSR as an entail ethical responsibility, looking at philanthropic
responsibility as an optional add-on (Longo at al., 2005). While other studies considered CSR as
a legal distinctive approach where companies must follow to ensure making business morally
and legally (Juholin, 2009). Jesus Barrena Martinez and Macarena Lopez-Fernandez realized that
there has been a remarkable development of CSR theories in the recent year, but they insisted
that there is an urgent need to find an effective framework for these theories on the production
level inside an enterprise and market-level outside the enterprise (Barrena-Martinez& Lopez-
Fernandez, 2017). Manuel Alvarez, Ana Moreno and Carlos Mataix concluded that The AHP has
been widely used to support decision processes, so it could be used to take decisions in the CSR
field (Alvarez at al., 2013). Dima Jamali mentioned that there are two general views for CSR, the
first view translates CSR into a narrow conception as simply entailing economic and legal
responsibilities, while the second translates into a broader conception of CSR entailing a wider
range of economic, legal, ethical, moral, and philanthropic responsibilities (Jamali & Mirshak,
2007).
Torsti Loikkanen and Kirsi Hyytinen mentioned that globalization has pushed international
corporations to disclose all its economic, social and environmental approaches for the public in
various media (Loikkanen & Hyytinen, 2011). They concluded from their studies that
corporations could differentiate itself and gains competitive advantages over other competitors
by maintaining a high level of transparency, which is one of the ethical dimensions in adopting
CSR approach. Such an issue might encourage other competitors also to become more
transparent and engage more in CSR approaches. CSR concept has been affected by academic
and practical milestones which developed its theories and spread it globally, so the current
literature should try to use this experience for shaping the future of CSR. Predicting the future of
CSR depends on adopting a clear mechanism to make appropriate decisions. The modern state of
CSR allows to have a lot of benefits, one of which is increasing the competitiveness of a
company (Timoshenkov et al., 2020).
Taking into account everything mentioned above, the objective of this research is to select
the more adequate CSR model for emerging country conditions.
Methdology
Nowadays, scholars and entrepreneurs have revealed the difference in adopting CSR programs
between developing (or emerging) countries and developed countries. They have recommended
decision-makers in a company to form a specialized committee to study the economic and social
conditions for the country they operate as a primary step, so they can adopt an appropriate CSR
model. The role of this committee is to choose the adequate CSR model and prepare an initial
plan for implementing it (Wayne, 2010). As it was explained, decision-makers could use AHP to
decompose the decision-making problem into decision elements. The AHP method will help
163 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
decision-makers to provide an obvious image for alternatives and priorities and make a final
decision for adopting the adequate CSR model.
According to Thomas L. Saaty AHP is a basic approach for decision making; the simplest
form used to structure a decision making is a hierarchy consisting at least of three levels: the goal
of the decision at the top level, followed by the second level consisting of the criteria, and
alternatives which are located in the third level that will be evaluated (Saaty, 1994).
Accordingly, the CSR hierarchy was proposed (fig 2). The goal of the decision at the top
level of the hierarchy is to strengthen the competitiveness of a company.
Strengthen competitiveness of
the company
Social sphereEcological
sphere
Adopt Trippel Bottom
Line CSR model
Adopt Carroll CSR
model
Adopt Stakeholders
CSR model
Political sphereEconomic
sphereEthical sphere
Figure 2. Hierarchal Model for Selecting the Most Appropriate CSR Approach to Strengthen Competitiveness of a
Company
Followed by the second level of the hierarchy that consists of five main spheres: economic
sphere, social sphere, political sphere, ecological sphere and ethical sphere. All these spheres are
interrelated and affected differently by the alternatives presented.
The third level of the hierarchy includes three different alternatives: The Carroll CSR
Model, The Triple Bottom Line CSR Model, The Stakeholders CSR Model (it is important to
note that there are a lot of other CSR models and approaches, but shedding the light of these
three models have been recommended by the famous author in the CSR sphere James Brusseau,
who mentioned that "it continues to be important throughout the economic world when
businesses are conceived as holding a wide range of economic and civic responsibilities as part
of their daily operation" (Brusseau, 2012).
Through figure 2 it has been represented the three alternatives of CSR approaches in the
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 164
basic level of the hierarchy, followed by the economic, social, political, ecological and ethical
spheres in the second level. All are interrelated to strength enterprise competitiveness.
According to Thomas Saaty theory, “using the AHP to model a problem, needs a hierarchy
to represent that problem, as well as pairwise comparisons to establish relations within the
structure. Pairwise comparison judgments in the AHP are applied to all possible pairs of
elements. Pairwise comparisons are made between the ratings to set priorities under each
criterion. The fundamental scale of values represents the intensities of judgments” (Saaty, 1994).
The fundamental scale of values is to represent the intensities of judgments shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Fundamental Rating Scale of Saaty for Pair-wise Comparison Matrix
Intensity of
Importance Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective
2 Weak or slight Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over
another 3 Moderate importance
4 Moderate plus Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over
another 5 Strong importance
6 Strong plus An activity is favoured very strongly over another; its
dominance demonstrated in practice 7 Very strong or demonstrated
importance
8 Very, very strong The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the
highest possible order of affirmation 9 Extreme importance
This scale has been validated for impact through theoretical justification of what scale one
must use in the comparison of homogeneous elements.
At the second step of using AHP approach, the contribution of every sphere to
competitiveness strengthening of the company has to be evaluated, therefore pair comparison of
the first level elements of the hierarchy must be provided. The scale will be the following: paying
attention to what sphere is more important for the management of a company for better
efficiency.
It is important to note that through this example the authors are dealing with companies
that might be located in developing countries where there is interference in the supervisory role
of the government in most cases that lead to high rates of corruption in the political and
economic system. However, if the company is located in a developed country the evaluation
should be changed, since in most developed countries there are very low rates of corruption, so
companies must give priority to social and ecological concerns more than political and ethical
concerns. That is why the evaluation process has to be discussed by the CSR committee in a
company, where a group of experts and decision-makers has to decide the priority of the
elements according to the country they are operating in, whether its developed country or
developing country.
165 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
A pairwise comparison has been estimated for the spheres affected by the CSR models and
the results were presented in table 2. According to logical order, the reason has been shown
behind every estimation, followed by rating the prevalence with a numerical intensity.
Firstly, adopting any type of CSR models required a strong relationship with the economic
sphere. The economic criteria are a crucial element to achieve profits and maintain sustainability,
without profitability any business cannot survive. But there is a tight link between the economic
sphere and the ethical sphere in business. For a company to behave efficiently and competitively
in a free market system, it requires a fundamental basis of ethics. Behaving ethically by
corporations means protecting the interests of the business community, and acting in a
transparent way with all stakeholders. Such behavior will prevent monopoly, oligopoly and
monopolistic competition (which aims at profit maximization of the producers but not that of
consumers). Thus, a renewed interest in the relationship between economic dimensions and
ethical dimension in a developing country must be considered as a priority factor to provoke any
kind of black markets and enhance competitiveness. Daniel Hausman and Michael McPherson
argued that moral philosophy can enrich economic theory and to some extent is already
implicitly part of it. In a similar vein, ethical considerations have minor impact on
competitiveness since it maintains for the company high reputation in the financial markets
(Hausman&McPherson, 2006).
Political issues are related to the laws enacted by government agencies. Funds are required
to accomplish almost everything in today’s world, including carrying out effective governance.
Therefore, politics and economics are inherently linked. Adopting any type of CSR model
requires form a company to bring into power group that can achieve economic and social
welfare, moreover, it requires from companies to support associations specialized in fighting
corruption and maintaining justice. Supporting such association and pro-form political groups
promotes economic stability and leads firms to operate on the base of free competition
principles. Accordingly, and due to the tight interrelation with ethical and political concerns as a
secondary rule, very slight importance to economic over ethical and political spheres were
presented in table 2 with intensity 2.
Social challenges in developing countries as high rates of poverty, high unemployment’s
rates and inferior meditation system are due to three main reasons: unfair equitable distribution
of wealth, taxes evasion, and lack of economic control. Thus, if a company behave in a
responsible economical way toward its community by paying all taxes, providing all social
services and allowances for its employees according to laws and condition, social challenges will
decrease. On one hand, behaving economically according to the rule and regulations will allow
responsible official bodies (government) to take its role in solving social challenges. On the other
hand, behaving economically by providing all social services and allowances for employees will
motivate them to innovate and developed in order to increase competitiveness. Accordingly, this
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 166
is the reason behind moderate importance of economic sphere over the social sphere (a little bit
more than over political and ethical factors) with an intensity of 3.
It’s impossible for a company to enhance ecological activities in its operational process if
it's not satisfied with its economic role or if it is not achieving profits. Any company has to
achieve profits and ensure its sustainability, then it can behave in a friendly ecological way.
Behaving ecologically means that firms must depend on renewable energy sources and reduce its
emission. And as it’s known depending on renewable energy sources reduce the cost of
production, and give an opportunity for firms to strengthen competitiveness. Such reasons will
demonstrate very strong importance of the economic sphere over the ecological sphere with
intensity 7.
On the other hand, integrating with the ethical sphere for a company in a developing
country means that a company has to maintain labors rights, guarantee employees’ financial
compensations and ensure a transparent relationship with all stakeholders. All these issues will
give a moderate plus importance to ethical criteria over the social criteria with intensity 3.
Moreover, if ecological standards and laws are ethically implemented, a company willingly
will obey all environmental laws and regulations, such clarification explains how the ethical
criteria demonstrate importance over the ecological criteria with intensity 5. Like a shred of
evidence for this estimation, the International Environmental Law (IEL) is a branch of public
international law - enforce companies to depend on the clean and renewable energy source and
force it also to not pollute water and soil within the establishment. Such ethical and political
behavioral procedures are sufficient to reduce pollution and increase the competitive power for a
company (Hendricks & Guruswamy, 1997). Due to the case study where any CSR model is in a
developing country, integrating with political criteria means that a company has to support
associations that deal with corruption combats and fully adapt to the fair-trade market system. In
other words, a company must obey laws and regulations that contribute to social and ecological
development, which will create a fair competitive market without any exclusive monopolies.
Such cases give moderate importance to political criteria over the social criteria with the
intensity of 3, and dominate the importance of political activities effectiveness over the
ecological ones with intensity 5.
The social criteria have a greater influence on both internal and external community for a
company than ecological influence, since the effectiveness of social activities could be more
obvious on various stakeholders more than ecological effectiveness. Jackson, I. and J. Nelson
characterize CSR as essential for successful business operations and as an opportunity for
business to behave competitively by taking look beyond narrow ecological returns and take the
wider social concern into consideration (Jackson & Nelson, 2004). Such evidence has led to
moderate importance of social criteria over the ecological ones with intensity 3.
167 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
Through dealing with this method, the software program Microsoft Excel has been used to
draw out criteria matrix tables, which represents an example to understand the process for
creating a pairwise comparison table. The calculated priority vector is presented in the table 2.
Table 2. Matrix of Criteria Pairwise Comparison
Criteria Economic
sphere
Ethical
sphere
Political
sphere
Socia
l
spher
e
Ecological
sphere
Priority Vector
(V)
Economic
sphere 1 2 2 3 7 0.36
Ethical sphere 1/2 1 2 3 5 0.27
Political sphere 1/2 1/2 1 3 5 0.20
Social sphere 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 0.11
Ecological
sphere 1/7 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 0.06
Total Sum (Ʃ) - - - - - 1
The components of the priority vector show the relative impotence of every sphere
(economic, ethical, political, social, ecological) for a company regarding its competitiveness.
Results and Descussion
After suggesting matrix of criteria pairwise comparison, a matrix comparison for the alternatives
has to be done. To make it more obvious it is better to present briefly how much every theory
gives attention to every factor as it is shown by the figure 3. It has been realized from figure 3
that TBL CSR approach, Carroll CSR approach and Stakeholder approach gave the same highest
attention for the economic sphere. In addition, it has been realized that the TBL CSR approach
gave higher attention to ethical sphere, political sphere, and ecological sphere more than Carroll
CSR approach and the Stakeholder approach. In contrast, Carroll CSR approach gave attention to
ethical sphere and political sphere more than Stakeholder CSR model.
Tables 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 explain the alternative matrix AHP methodology where it reveals a
comparison between alternatives models corresponding to every sphere suggested in the
hierarchy.
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 168
Figure 3. Attention Given by Every CSR Approach on the Suggested Spheres
Through table 3, a pairwise comparison matrix has been estimated between the three CSR
models regarding their attention toward the social sphere. Corresponding to (Hengstmengel,
2010) it has been proved that for a company to adopt a TBL CSR model, it is a must to
contribute to social affairs and achieve social sustainability. However, due to the wide difference
between various societies, The TBL theory relies on studying the basic social needs so that
companies could target these needs according to its importance. While adopting Carroll model
does not require prior study of the social reality and determine its priorities accurately, but only
recommends that the economic, legal, moral and philanthropic responsibilities are expected from
the society (Carroll, 2016). As a result, it has been estimated that TBL CSR model is moderate
importance over Carroll CSR model with intensity 3. The Stakeholder theory cited shareholders,
workers, customers, suppliers, and community as the five cardinal stakeholders. Stakeholders
theory determine the main social stakeholders, but it didn’t mention the social procedures that
have to be followed in detailed as TBL theory, so TBL model gives slightly importance to social
criteria over Stakeholder model with intensity 2. Moreover, since the Stakeholder model
determined the main social participant, while Carroll Model didn’t mention any social
participants, moderate importance was given to stakeholder Model over the Carroll model with
intensity 3.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Economical sphere Ethical sphere Political sphere Social sphere Ecological sphere
Paying attention to following factors (0...5)
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
169 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
Table 3. Pairwise Comparison Matrix Concerning the Social Sphere
CSR Theory CSR Theory Priority Vector
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
TBL CSR Model 1 3 2 0.53
Carroll CSR Model 1/3 1 1/3 0.14
Stakeholder CSR Model 1/2 3 1 0.33
Through table 4, a pairwise comparison matrix has been estimated between the three CSR
models regarding their attention on the ecological sphere. The TBL model gives importance to
the ecological dimension in the same manner as it gives to economical dimension. The concept
of Ecological Sustainable Development (ECD) has been adopted by TBL theory. It is important
to note that the most important key principles and objectives of the ECD are to enhance the
environmental protection and to maintain global environmental competitiveness. All the key
principles were mentioned by the Council of Australian Governments in the National Strategy
for Ecologically Sustainable Development conference (ESDSC, 1992). While Carrol didn’t
mention through his CSR model any relationship with the ecological sphere, he just mentioned
that corporation have to obey general laws in order to implement CSR and increase its
competitiveness, and environmental laws are considered. Logically TBL CSR model gives
strongly importance to ecological sphere in prevalence to Carroll CSR model, with intensity 5.
The Stakeholder model has brought importance to some cases, such as the limited usefulness of
environmental procedures voluntarily revealed by large firms in their production processes. But
TBL CSR model still has slightly importance over the Stakeholders model since it has to achieve
ecological aims and maintain ESD, estimating the intensity 2. As for Stakeholder CSR mode, it
declares partnership with ecological stakeholders for the decision-making process, while Carroll
CSR model didn’t mention any relation with the ecological sphere, make it obvious that
Stakeholder CSR model have moderate importance in ecological sphere than Carroll’s modern
given the intensity of 3.
Table 4. Pairwise Comparison Matrix Concerning the Ecological Sphere
CSR Theory CSR Theory Priority Vector
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
TBL CSR Model 1 5 2 0.58
Carroll CSR Model 1/5 1 1/3 0.11
Stakeholder CSR Model 1/2 3 1 0.31
Through table 5, a pairwise comparison matrix has been estimated between the three CSR
models regarding the attention on the ethical sphere. Ethical element is one of the most
important elements that have to be balanced with other elements in order to implement the TBL
CSR model. The World Report on Environment and Development concluded that boardrooms
address ethical behavior based on the concept of the Triple Bottom Line. Marta Kadłubek
mentioned that sustainability is the core philosophy from which the triple bottom line is derived,
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 170
behaving ethically in a sustainability sense has enormous benefits, she added that investments in
reorienting a company onto a path of sustainability will almost certainly produce significant win-
win scenarios (Kadłubena, 2015). On the other hand, Carroll CSR model only recommend
commitment toward ethical standards. This reason has been shown in table 6 by giving moderate
importance to TBL CSR theory over Carroll CSR theory with an intensity of 3.
In addition, through adopting TBL CSR model, companies must consider transparency and
credibility ethical elements with all its stakeholders (Garriga&Melé, 2004). While the risk behind
the Stakeholder Theory is that decision makers could disclose financial and non-financial
information or decisions to shareholders and some specified stakeholders who are interested in
increasing the profit of the company, without taking into consideration other stakeholder who
might be affected negatively by these decisions. From this point, it has been concluded that TBL
CSR model has strongly importance ethical relations and concerns than Stakeholder model, with
an intensity of 5. Carroll mentioned through his CSR model that ethical responsibility embraces
fair activities done by a corporation and expected by society, moreover, he located the ethical
concerns in the third level of Carroll CSR pyramid (Carroll, 1999). While Stakeholder theory
didn’t consist in detail the importance of ethical relations with other stakeholders. Carroll CSR
model moderate importance of ethical sphere over Stakeholder CSR model, with an intensity of
3.
Table 5. Pairwise Comparison Matrix Concerning the Ethical Sphere
CSR Theory CSR Theory Priority Vector
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
TBL CSR Model 1 3 5 0.64
Carroll CSR Model 1/3 1 3 0.26
Stakeholder CSR Model 1/5 1/3 1 0.10
Through table 6, a pairwise comparison matrix has been estimated between the three CSR
models regarding the attention toward the political element. It has been proved through the
majority of business scholars that only TBL CSR model shed the light on political theories
group, where a corporation is responsible to use its power in maintaining justice and equality in
the political life. Archie Carroll mentioned that supporting associations that aim to spread the
culture of human rights, labor rights, women's rights and fight corruption in society lead to
enhance the role political theories and provides transparency for true values of CSR (Carroll,
1999). While Joost W. Hengstmengel mentioned that companies have only one legal
responsibility which is respecting laws and regulations (Hengstmengel, 2010). It has been
estimated that TBL CSR model is moderate importance over the Carroll CSR model concerning
the political sphere with an intensity of 3. The detailed clarification for TBL CSR to political
stakeholders compared with the undetailed clarification of political stakeholders by the
Stakeholders model gives the TBL model strong importance over Stakeholder model with an
intensity 5. In contrast to Stakeholder Theory, at least Carroll CSR model gave general
171 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
description for the political responsibility which gives moderate importance to Carroll CSR
model over the Stakeholder model with an intensity 3.
Table 6. Pairwise Comparison Matrix Concerning the Political Sphere
CSR Theory CSR Theory
Priority Vector TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
TBL CSR Model 1 3 5 0.64
Carroll CSR Model 1/3 1 3 0.26
Stakeholder CSR Model 1/5 1/3 1 0.10
Through table 7, a pairwise comparison matrix has been estimated between the three CSR
models regarding the attention toward the economic sphere. Since the economic factor is
considered crucial for any CSR theory, hence, crucial for competence, and since all the CSR
theories consider the economic factor as the main factor for maintaining economic sustainability.
Moreover, all the theories considered the economic as a basic element in order to be able to
connect and integrate with other spheres. As a result, all CSR models gave the economic sphere
the same importance. It has been considered equal importance for all theories concerning the
economic sphere with intensity 1. It is important to note that the estimated judgments are able to
be modified for further studies considering different factors.
Table 7. Pairwise Comparison Matrix Concerning the Economic Sphere
CSR Theory CSR Theory Priority Vector
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
TBL CSR Model 1 1 1 0.33
Carroll CSR Model 1 1 1 0.33
Stakeholder CSR Model 1 1 1 0.33
The final results required from the complex assessment of CSR approaches and the spheres
shown in the AHP hierarchy have been represented by table 8 and figure 4.
Table 8. Index for calculating the final priority weight of CSR theories
Index
Spheres which must be taken into account when applying CSR approach
Final
Priority
Weight
Economic
sphere
Ethical
sphere
Political
sphere
Social
sphere
Ecological
sphere
Priority Vector for the
spheres
(table 2)
0.35 0.27 0.2 0.11 0.06 -
CSR Theories Priority vectors of the alternatives concerning the sphere
(tables 3-7) -
TBL CSR Model 0.33 0.64 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.51
Carroll CSR Model 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.11 0.26
Stakeholder CSR Model 0.33 0.1 0.1 0.33 0.31 0.22
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 172
Figure 4. Relative Rates for the CSR Models to Strengthen Competitiveness of a Company in Emerging Economies
It has been realized from figure 4 that the TBL model has the highest priority weight,
followed by the Carroll CSR model, followed by the Stakeholder CSR model. In this study,
many criteria were identified through the AHP methodology. The results were presented in the
tables and were analyzed in details according to various scientific thoughts. The AHP model
helped the chain managers in selecting the most convenient CSR model.
Conclusion
The aim of the article is to find the most adequate CSR model for strengthen competitiveness in
a emerging economy context. The most adequate CSR model is the model that strengthen the
competitiveness of a company in the most effective way. AHP has been used to build hierarchy
for the three CSR models with five suggested spheres (economic, ethical, political, social and
ecological) in order to strengthen competitiveness in the most effective way. High attention to
ethical values creates opportunity for an enterprise to gain the trust of government and
community, the matter that will increase its reputation and strengthen its competitiveness.
Political reform is indispensable endeavor for enterprises to enhance fair competitiveness.
Ecological stewardship contributes to the international standards and open the opportunity for
enterprises to enter the global competitiveness markets. Satisfied external society maintains
customer loyalty for an enterprise and satisfied internal society motivates credibility and
innovations. Therefore, high attentiveness to the five spheres is crucial to strengthen
competitiveness of a company.
It has been proved through using the AHP approach that TBL model has the highest
relative rate (0.51) over other CSR models, thus it could be the first priority to be adopted by
companies located in emerging countries for the aim of strengthening competitiveness
efficiently.
Every CSR model gave different attentiveness on the suggested spheres; hence, every CSR
model has various disruptions for the allocated CSR expenditure among the five spheres. This
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
TBL CSR Model Carroll CSR Model Stakeholder CSR Model
173 Journal of Information Technology Management, 2021, Special Issue
means that if decision-makers in a company decide to adopt the TBL CSR model, they have to
distribute CSR budget (or expenditure) over the five spheres in a higher proportion than if they
adopt Carroll CSR model or Stakeholder model. Unfortunately, this might be an obstacle for
decision-makers to adopt TBL CSR model due to the high expenditure rate which could be a
limitation point in the article.
Further researches could be done in future in order to prove that companies can adopt the
TBL CSR model, and could pay attention to the five spheres even without high expenditures and
budgets. Some attentions could be given to the five spheres only by moral interactions and
achievements, it is not a must to specialize high financial budgets.
References
Abreu, R., David, F. & Crowther, D. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in Portugal: empirical
evidence of corporate behaviour, Corporate Governance, 5, pp. 3-18.
Álvarez, M., Moreno, A., & Mataix, C. (2013). The analytic hierarchy process to support decision-making
processes in infrastructure projects with social impact. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 24(5-6), pp.596-606.
Barrena-Martínez, J., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernández, P. (2017). Socially Responsible
Human Resource Policies and Practices: academic and professional validation. European Research
on Management and Business Economics, 23(1), pp.55-61.
Brin, P.V. & Prokhorenko, O.V. (2014). Quantifying the integration degree of an enterprise, Actual
Problems of Economics, 7, pp.484-494.
Brin, P., Prokhorenko, O., Nehme, M. & Trabulsi, H. (2020). Strategic contribution of a business process
to company’s performance. Journal of Information Technology Management, 12(3), pp.82-99
Brusseau, J. (2012). The business ethics workshop. The Saylor Foundation.
Carroll, A. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International journal of corporate
social responsibility, 1(1), 3.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct. Business &
society, 38(3), pp.268-295.
ESDSC, (1992). Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee. National Strategy for
Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD).
Garriga, E. & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: mapping the territory. Business
Ethics, 53, pp.51-71.
Hausman, D., & McPherson, M. (2006). Practical Application of CSR Complex Evaluation System.
Intellectual Economics, 10(2), 101-107.
Hengstmengel, J. (2010) The relationship between economics and ethics and the light Dooyeweerd sheds
on it. Ratio, 24, pp.443-468.
Hendricks, B. & Guruswamy, L. (1997). International Environmental Law in a Nutshell Westgroup
Publishers, Carlifornia.
Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for … 174
Jackson, I., & Nelson, J. (2004). Values-driven performance: Seven strategies for delivering profits with
principles. Ivey Business Journal, 69 (2), pp.1-8.
Jamali, D. & Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a
developing country context. Journal of business ethics, 72(3), pp.243-262.
Juholin, E. (2004). For Business or the Good of All? A Finnish Approach to Corporate Social
Responsibility. Corporate Governance, 4.3, pp.20-31.
Kadłubena, M. (2015). The Essence of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Performance of Selected
Company. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, pp.509-515.
Loikkanen, T. & Hyytinen, K. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitiveness: empirical
results and future challenges. Environmental Management, Accounting and Supply Chain
Management, 27, pp.151-170.
Longo, M., Mura, M. & Bonoli, A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance:
the case of Italian SMEs. Corporate Governance, 5(4), pp.28-42.
Menichini, T. & Rosati, F. (2014). A fuzzy approach to improve CSR reporting: an application to the
Global Reporting Initiative indicators. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 109, pp.355-359.
Riahi, A. & Moharrampour, M. (2016). Evaluation of Strategic Management in Business with AHP Case
Study: PARS house appliance. Economics and Finance 36, pp. 10-21.
Saaty, T. L. & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy
process. Springer.
Saaty, T. L. (1994). Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74(3), pp.426-447.
Slapikaitė, I. (2006). Practical Application of CSR Complex Evaluation System. Intellectual Economics,
10(2), pp.101-107.
Timoshenkov, I., Babenko, V., Nashchekina, О. Makovoz, O. (2020) Institutional Foundations of
Ukraine’s Transition to the Green Economy. Research in World Economy 11(4), pp. 16-22
Wayne, V. (2010). The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business. Business Systems
Governance and Ethics, 5(3), pp.7-22.
Bibliographic information of this paper for citing:
Brin, P. & Nehme M. (2021). Sustainable Development in Emerging Economy: Using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process for Corporate Social Responsibility Decision Making. Journal of
Information Technology Management, Special Issue, 159-174.
Copyright © 2021, Pavlo Brin and Mohamad Nehme.